{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-paul-cruz-lankford-and-inhofe-call-investigation-national-science-foundation/", "Paul, Cruz, Lankford, and Inhofe Call for Investigation at the National Science Foundation", "2018-06-18", "2018", "2018-06", "Republican", "Senate", "KY", "Rand Paul", "P000603", "www.paul.senate.gov", "paul", "https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/", "scraper", "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:\n\nJune 18, 2018\n\nContact: Sergio Gor (Paul), 202-224-4343\n\nMaria Jeffrey (Cruz), (202) 224-5922\n\n(Lankford), (202) 224-5754\n\nLeacy Burke (Inhofe), (202) 224-4721\n\nWASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), James Lankford (R-OK), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) requested National Science Foundation (NSF) Inspector General Allison Lerner investigate the NSF\u2019s grant-making process, relaying their concern that the NSF has \u201cissued several grants which seek to influence political and social debate rather than conduct scientific research\u201d in contradiction of federal law and the agency\u2019s mission.\n\nAmong the examples, the senators cited the NSF providing over four million dollars to a climate-change coalition to turn television meterologists into climate change evangelists (with almost three million coming after initial research revealed a significant lack of consenses on climate change among meterologists), as well as a grant to increase the engineering industry\u2019s activism on social justice issues.\n\n\u201cResearch designed to sway individuals of a various group, be they meteorologists or engineers, to a politically contentious viewpoint is not science \u2013 it is propagandizing. Such efforts certainly fail to meet the standard of scientific research to which the NSF should be devoting federal taxpayer dollars,\u201d the senators wrote.\n\nThe senators went on to ask Inspector General Lerner to answer seven questions in her investigation to determine if proper quality controls are in place at NSF and to discover if the agency failed to abide by federal law while using the American people\u2019s tax dollars to fund research.\n\nThe letter is signed by Senator Paul as chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management; Senator Cruz as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness; Senator Lankford as chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management; and Senator Inhofe as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure.\n\nYou can read the senators\u2019 letter below:\n\n***\n\nDear Inspector General Lerner,\n\nThe federal government is the largest benefactor of scientists conducting research in the United States, devoting billions of dollars to scientific pursuits each year. The role of organizations such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to provide financial support to scientists conducting basic research which furthers public knowledge and the common good.\n\nHowever, we are concerned the federal government\u2019s system of supporting research lacks sufficient quality controls, leading to projects designed with the stated and specific intent to convince members of the general public to adopt particular political positions. NSF, intended to be a supporter of basic research beneficial to the common good, has issued several grants which seek to influence political and social debate rather than conduct scientific research. The manner in which grants such as these receive federal funding is deserving of further scrutiny.\n\nTo that end, we are requesting that the NSF Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conduct an investigation to determine whether wrongdoing, including violation of federal law, took place throughout the approval process which resulted in NSF Grant #0917566 and #1422431, as well as #1664260, receiving federal funding. We are also requesting the NSF OIG investigate whether the \u201cresearch\u201d or outcomes of these projects constitute violations of the Hatch Act or any other federal statute or regulation.\n\nGrants #0917566 and #1422431, entitled \u201cEnabling TV Meteorologists to Provide Viewers with Climate Change-related Science Education Based on ISE \u2018Best Practices,'\u201d and \u201cTV Weathercasters and Climate Education: Expanding the Reach of Climate Matters,\u201d received $1,060,4321 and $2,998,1782 respectively. These funds were issued to a partnership of two universities and Climate Central, a group The Washington Post described as:\n\n\u201c[A]n advocacy group, aiming to get people to do more about what the group now sees as \u2018a clear and present danger\u2019\u2014 global climate change. As its rewritten Web site [sic] now says, its mission is not just to inform people but also to \u2018inspire Americans to support action to stabilize the climate, prepare for a hotter world, or some combination of the two.'\u201d3\n\nClimate Central has since changed the manner in which it characterizes itself, perhaps due to the attention it received from The Washington Post, but the organization\u2019s receipt of federal dollars for advocacy efforts raises significant concerns.\n\nThe initial research group\u2019s efforts were to determine the methods TV meteorologists use to disseminate \u201cinformal science education, and make recommendations to improve practice,\u201d as well as produce \u201ceducational materials, principally a set of 30-second segments that can serve as a resource for TV meteorologists nation-wide.\u201d4 From this research, the coalition determined:\n\n\u201cUncertainty associated with climate science and the science-policy interface presents unique challenges owing to the complexity of the climate system itself. \u2026\u201d5 and\n\n\u201cRather than rationally weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves, as would be expected under more traditional ideas of scientific judgment, scientists may also use the views of a relevant peer group as a social cue for forming their own views. \u2026 [C]limate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms.\u201d6\n\nHaving learned that meteorologists in general remained inconclusive regarding climate change, this coalition then returned to the NSF and secured an additional $2,998,178 to expand \u201cthe reach\u201d of a political advocacy group by recruiting 200 additional weathercasters nationwide to participate in \u201cprofessional development activities and training on use of Climate Matters [a subsidiary of Climate Central] materials to help them become confident and competent climate educators. \u2026\u201d7\n\nWe find NSF\u2019s stewardship of the federal taxpayer dollars devoted to the latter project particularly egregious for a number of reasons. Given the earlier finding, it is troubling that NSF saw fit to fund this project designed to \u201crecruit\u201d experts to a position they did not come to of their own accord as meteorologists.8 It is further troubling that the specific objective of converting meteorologists to a climate-action-oriented opinion was to show them how an unknowledgeable citizenry would be more easily convinced of the same belief.\n\nSimilarly, Grant #1664260, \u201cEngineering Dissent: Moving Political Engagement for Social Justice from the Vanguard into the Mainstream of the Engineering Profession,\u201d also seeks to disseminate and convince individuals to adopt a particular politicized worldview. The proposal received $369,480 \u201cto study political engagement around social justice issues by a vanguard of engineers and to investigate how their dissent \u2013 be it expressed as activism, advocacy, protest, or reform \u2013 shapes the culture of their profession.\u201d9 The aim of the investigators was simply \u201cto strengthen the role of social justice by, (a) mapping the evolution of social justice in the culture of the profession, and then (b) sharing the findings (of effective channels of advocacy) with engineering student groups and professional member societies.\u201d10\n\nUnfortunately, these are hardly the only examples of NSF funding projects that appear to have little value beyond pushing for increased political activism. Grant #1423788, \u201cUnderstanding the Mechanisms for Disengagement from Contentious Political Interaction,\u201d provided $149,975 to examine whether individuals who shy away from conflict are less likely to participate in the political process and how to help them overcome this reluctance. Grant #1528487, \u201cCollaborative Research: A New Design for Identifying Persuasion Effects and Selection in Media Exposures Experiments via Patient Preference Trials,\u201d provided at least $588,225 to researchers to look into the following questions: \u201cDoes media choice cause polarization or does polarization cause media choice?\u201d as well as to what extent media can persuade viewers \u201cacross the partisan aisle. \u2026\u201d11\n\nWe have considerable concerns that each of the aforementioned grants fall substantially outside the scope of \u201cbasic research,\u201d the mission of the NSF, as well as the federal government. Each of these grants is explicitly designed to influence political debate in favor of a particular, and controversial, viewpoint. This is a stark departure from the purpose of the NSF, which includes \u201cpromot[ing] the progress of science.\u201d12 Research designed to sway individuals of a various group, be they meteorologists or engineers, to a politically contentious viewpoint is not science \u2013 it is propagandizing. Such efforts certainly fail to meet the standard of scientific research to which the NSF should be devoting federal taxpayer dollars.\n\nFor nearly 80 years, Congress has imposed significant restraints on the legality of using federal resources to engage in political activity. Namely, the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees, agencies, and other entities from engaging in partisan activity with the use of federal resources. It is unacceptable for federal agencies to support such research which attempts to convince individuals to adopt a particular viewpoint rather than conducting objective research examining a given topic. In light of these concerns and the information provided in regards to the grants detailed above, we ask that NSF OIG conduct an investigation to determine the following:\n\n1. Did the funding of any of the grants above, or the dissemination of findings, constitute engagement in political activity using government resources?\n\n2. Did the issuance of these grants constitute a violation of the Hatch Act or any other law or federal regulation, both government-wide and specific to NSF, governing political activity?\n\n3. What standard does the NSF use to ensure that political research such as that described above is not granted approval to receive federal tax dollars?\n\n4. What, if any, wrongdoing did NSF employees, researchers, or any individuals or organizations involved in the grant issuance commit?\n\n5. What, if any, internal controls are in place to ensure that all grants fall within the statutory purpose of NSF, which is \u201cto promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense\u201d?13\n\n6. If no legal violations or ethical wrongdoing occurred, what changes to NSF policies and procedures does the NSF OIG recommend be implemented so as to avoid devoting federal tax dollars to facially political efforts such as these in the future?\n\n7. What other grants may have been issued with the purpose of influencing or advancing political advocacy positions?\n\n__________________________", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-06-27T22:59:28Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-paul-cruz-lankford-and-inhofe-call-investigation-national-science-foundation/"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.0627750307321548, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}